--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "fflmod" <ffl...@...> wrote: > > > What's your point...that expanding medicare to middle-aged citizens is not a > high expense for the federal government simply because, in the words of the > article, "Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy"? Simply raise taxes? >
Well, when you consider that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy are due to Sunset in 2011 and that the Democrats have the power to raise the cap on Social Security from $90K to a lot more and the power to roll back the tax to pre-Reagan, yep, there could be plenty of money for Medicare, Social Security and a Single Payer health care system. Other than kowtowing to the insurance industry and the wealthy 1 or 2 percent who want a bill that amounts to a mandated feeding trough for the insurance industry, there is no reason why Congress needs to pass a bill that torpedoes employee group plans so that we lose our leverage to negotiate decent plans, that squeezes an excise tax out of the middle class for their crappy bill and taxes on Cadillac Plans for which unions sacrificed their wages. The health care bill is monumentally complicated with a whole lot of sneaky stuff in it that's going to bite you in the ass. Keep it simple and people will support it. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool <fflmod@> wrote: > > > > > > I think that is the only way Ted Kennedy wanted it to be done. It was > > > irritating to get voice mail messages from Bill Clinton and Obama asking > > > me to vote for Coakley, with the idea I would be supporting Ted Kennedy's > > > dream, when it's the insurance companies that are controlling most of the > > > cash flow. The insurance companies gave lots of money to the Coakley > > > campaign. Medicare down to age 55 would have at least been a start > > > towards what Ted Kennedy wanted, but it was considered to be too > > > expensive. > > > > > > > Correction: Medicare down to age 50 is less expensive, not more expensive: > > > > "Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of > > poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. > > Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy. > > > > And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that > > makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than > > 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger > > version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter > > than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election." > > > > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html > > >
